Thoughts on Roman Arguments on Church Fathers & Bishops of Rome

[spoof1]

great stuff keith, keep going !!

[Mkvine]

Keith, I'll let you have the last word, I don't want you to think I'm flooding your comments page. Talk to you later. Lord Bless you.

[Mkvine]

Keith, how are you bro? I have a question, you said that this language was "common" among the Church Fathers. For the sake of argument, lets say that the Bishop of Rome was not considered higher than the other Patriarchal Sees like Antioch, Jerusalem, etc. Would that mean that you are conceding to the fact that the early Church believed in the authority of the Bishops/Patriarchs over the body of believers? It seems to me that this only demonstrates the authoritative nature of the Church.

[KeithTruth]

@Mkvine I am good, how are you? If that were the case I would agree with Calvin who said "The power of the church…resides partly in individual bishops, and partly in councils, either provincial or general…" A proper understanding of sola scriptura shows there is no conflict there.

[Mkvine]

@KeithTruth

Hey keith, I'm doing well by God's Grace alone. I understand that "sola scriptura" as expounded by Keith Mathison allows for the authority of Councils and Tradition, but it says that the only final infallible authority is Scripture. Correct me if I'm wrong, btw. However, if you look at the history of the Church, these Fathers held to the view that Councils can dogmatically *bind* the faithful and if not adhering to that, people would be anathematized.

[Mkvine]

@KeithTruth

Hey keith, I'm doing well by God's Grace alone. I understand that "sola scriptura" as expounded by Keith Mathison allows for the authority of Councils and Tradition, but it says that the only final infallible authority is Scripture. Correct me if I'm wrong, btw. However, if you look at the history of the Church, these Fathers held to the view that Councils can dogmatically *bind* the faithful and if not adhering to that, people would be anathematized.

[KeithTruth]

@Mkvine Yes just like we affirm that someone who rejects Nicaea 1, because its creed is rooted in Scriptural/Gospel truth, is bound to it and anathematizes themself if they reject it. As the 1689 LBC notes: "All people throughout the world who profess the faith of the Gospel and obedience to Christ on its terms, and who do not destroy their profession by any errors which contradict or overthrow Gospel fundamentals, or by unholy behaviour, are visible saints and may be regarded as such."

[Mkvine]

@KeithTruth

Keith, you're suggesting that Scripture and Councils are both binding as long as they do not contradict each other. Neither Catholics nor Orthodox believe that Councils can contradict Scripture. However, the fact that they are BOTH *binding* as you seem to have conceded, seems to me to undermine Mathison's notion of "sola scriptura" - since he believes that its the final infallible authority. But being a final infallible authority was also a function of the Councils.

[Onetruthrgv]

Check out theologica37 response

[KeithTruth]

@Onetruthrgv I'll be responding to that guy later on today.

[msm1876]

Wonderful, wonderful points. Roman Catholic apologists can be very unscrupulous about these quotes. VERY unscrupulous.

[KeithTruth]

@MessianicLight I am making 3 large volumes and still have to do numerous interviews so probably next year.

[TheObservationDeck]

liked

[Licmycat]

Very good. My main prob with them is that the popes all call themselves, 'Infallible'. Which means they are perfect and saying they are a god in veiling words. Or they are simply shoving Jesus out of the way to take his place. They don't believe their members can have a 'personal' relationship with GOD, they need THEM to talk to them FOR GOD. And I got a repulsive feeling for that. I think even the elect have been deceived in that church.

[MilesVitae]

@Licmycat Although your comment is several months old, I would like to respond.

Papal infallibility means nothing of the sort that you've been informed it does. The dogma of papal infallibility does not assert that the Pope is personally "perfect" or sinless.

According to the dogma of papal infallibility, the Pope, as the divinely established visible head of the Church, is preserved from teaching error when, acting as Pope, h definitively teaches the whole Church on a matter of faith or morals.

[MilesVitae]

@Licmycat Your impression of Catholicism is mistaken. Catholicism teaches that Christ has established a Church with a visible structure, visible authorities, and visible ministers of the Sacraments. This is in no way implies Catholics are not called to have a personal relationship with God. On the contrary, the Church calls all people to just such a relationship, through prayer, the sacraments, learning of the truth, and virtue.

[MilesVitae]

@Licmycat The devout Catholics I know who are familiar with the teachings of the Church have a personal, prayer relationship with God, BECAUSE of and not merely in spite of their Catholic faith.

[Licmycat]

@MilesVitae Remember the pope that got shot? And then had a bullet proof shield for his car? Not a great example of faith in GOD. Why did GOD let him get shot?

[MilesVitae]

@Licmycat I can't say why God allowed John Paul II to be shot - God allows many evil things to happen. After all, he allowed every faithful Apostle except John to be martyred.

Faith in God doesn't demand us to do away with basic prudence - we don't keep doors unlocked at night, go into bad parts of town, etc. just because we have faith in God.

But even if John Paul did have weak faith, that is his personal failing. People with God-given authority are still able to be personally weak people.

[MilesVitae]

@MilesVitae For instance, Jesus tells the people in Matthew to listen to what the rabbis tell them, because the rabbis sit in the "Chair of Moses," that is to say they have the teaching authority among the Jewish people - but he tells them not to follow what the rabbis do.

The point is, they have legitimate authority even though they are personally bad people.

[Licmycat]

@MilesVitae Yeah, the man was just a man who did NOT have the faith and trust in GOD to protect him. But as they go along to protect the princes of darkness they cover up and protect pedophiles. How sickening, I smell satan here. I know how they are too well.

[MilesVitae]

@Licmycat I'm actually going to continue this conversation in the context of personal messages.

As far as this what you have just said, please refer back to my most recent comments. They have already addressed your arguments, which do not in anyway injure the Catholic claim.

[MilesVitae]

@Licmycat

Since I can't pm you, I'll stay on here. I've already explained that Catholics do not claim the Pope is necessarily going to be personally holy. What they claim is that the position of authority he holds is a legitimate authority established by Jesus Christ himself. This claim may or may not be true, but the point is scandals in the Church or personal failings of a Pope are not relevant to papal authority of infallibility.

[MilesVitae]

@Licmycat

The passage I referred to earlier is Matthew 23:1-3. Jesus tells the people that the scribes and Pharisees sit in the "Chair of Moses:" therefore follow whatever they tell you to do - but don't follow what they actually do themselves, because they don't act according to their own words.

In other words, even though they are personally bad people and hypocritical, their authority is still legitimate authority and must be obeyed.

[TheFunkyTheist]

Despite some of our differences on our approaches to Roman Catholicism, I agree with you here. The papacy was a medieval and evolved doctrine that found very little resemblance to the early status of the Roman see.

[TheObservationDeck]

liked.

[TheObservationDeck]

liked